|
Originally Posted by GBU-24
(Post 745285)
ACL...it's been a week please change your logo...thanks:)
BD |
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 745244)
I do have one question about GUM. I can't understand whether this would be a defensive piece if we failed to access HND, or a positive piece to complement JAL. Why would we want an operation there?
|
Originally Posted by Sink r8
(Post 745263)
So for example, a way to have 737-800 crews do intra-Asia from NRT or HND, but originating their trip in GUM? This as opposed to having a GUM "hub", or GUM operation similar to CAL?
|
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 745292)
Sink..........don't know. A computer room discussion last month involved this very question. The group consensus was that if we didn't get the JAL deal we would need GUM. If we got the JAL deal, we would not. That seemed to be the opinion of most of the old Asia hands in the room.....and no, I can't explain it any deeper than that. We need Carl to chim in:D
|
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 745292)
Sink..........don't know. A computer room discussion last month involved this very question. The group consensus was that if we didn't get the JAL deal we would need GUM. If we got the JAL deal, we would not. That seemed to be the opinion of most of the old Asia hands in the room.....and no, I can't explain it any deeper than that. We need Carl to chim in:D
|
Originally Posted by Ferd149
(Post 745292)
Sink..........don't know. A computer room discussion last month involved this very question. The group consensus was that if we didn't get the JAL deal we would need GUM. If we got the JAL deal, we would not. That seemed to be the opinion of most of the old Asia hands in the room.....and no, I can't explain it any deeper than that. We need Carl to chim in:D
... A couple of other points to consider: 1) If NRT is downgauged to 767's (seems awfully likely, considering the cosnistent discussions and rumors since DCC), then you can have some 757's doing intra-Asia without deadheading. 2) There is nothing saying we couldn't also have 73N's serving NRT or HND via a GUM base. Quick, stop-gap measure to help JAL, to cover certain flying that needs to be covered by narrow-body for the Alliance. OR 3) We may want to have a mix of narrow-bodies in Asia, regardless of how JAL turns out to pick the best plane for the best route. 73N's from GUM, and 75/76 originating in SEA and LAX seems like a good way to do it all. "Good" if you're a beancounter, that is. |
Here's the template for the JAL route restructuring:
Flightglobal: JAL expands codeshare with Vietnam Airlines Japan Airlines (JAL) plans to place its code on Vietnam Airlines' Osaka Kansai-Hanoi services from 13 January as the two carriers expand a code share agreement. JAL will suspend its existing daily flight between Osaka Kansai and Hanoi from January 11, says JAL. I'd expect JAL will implement their international along similar announcements... Cheers George |
Originally Posted by ExAF
(Post 745270)
If you live in base and go to training in base (not using a hotel room), do you get any expenses (such as mileage or per diem)?
|
Hmmm. Shrinking fNWA fleet (-9s, 747-2s, and 757s) and growing fDL fleet (-90s, 737s, 777s). Wonder if there's a message in there somewhere for the other workgroups to speed up the representation issues.
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 745214)
I would have sworn that DAL would sign on to the C-Series. It would makes sense because of the time to market for a next gen 737. It would also make sense to buy more 737 as they would be hitting 20 years when they would be replaced, but they seem to have no plans for the 737, and are not totally sold on the C-Series. Maybe the decision will surprise all of us.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:01 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands